Found Deceased Australia - Karen Ristevski, 47, Melbourne, Vic, 29 June 2016 - #10

[moreinfo]

Just a thought bubble, could the murder have occurred closer to where the body was found. Both phones were pinged not to far from each other however we don't know the time of the pings. Did he follow her when she left the house? Was he angry that she had decided to leave him? Did they pull over and the argument continued and become violent? Did he seek assistance from another party to help dispose of the body and drive the other car back? Why haven't they released the cause of death? Have they established they cause of death?

No doubt someone in that family knows something but hasn't got the guts to stand up and say something. Makes me wonder how that family felt about KR if they are not willing to pull out all stops to find justice for her. Sad, very sad.

Id still like to know what Vasko was doing at the burnt down building at jacks wine bar Blackhill winery which has an underground cellar. Locals have seen him here on a few occasions . Was this a place of significance in Karen's case?Was she initially disposed of here, did the murder occur here, we're meetings between the Borce ,Vasko and Chris held here before this location became public.

 

[JC40]

Ninety percent of deception is by withheld information. Word by word, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph in a statement can be 100% true. It's what's left out, omitted, (if any) is what wee seek.

Deceptive statements will often have a great deal of extraneous information, ( eg "went upstairs, um, and then came downstairs" , Borce) in them that have nothing to do with the event in question. The deceptive may put in detail after detail, leading up to the occurrence of the event, then suddenly gloss over (and then) the event itself, telling very little about it, if anything at all.

"And then"

This is known as a "Text Bridge", "Temporal lacunae", as skip in time.
We all do it. If we were to document everything that happened on a given day, it would bore the listener/reader, so we skirt or gloss over certain events.

However, given Borce's statement, and the significance and seriousness of what occurred, we would not expect him to jump time, especially since it falls into the extraneous information category. If he considers it important to tell us she went up and "then" came back down, then we should expect the reason for this, he doesn't oblige. It may be something insignificant, but we need to know.

Minute details are paramount in murder cases, it could lead to a conviction of whomever committed an alleged crime.

The most commonly used Text Bridges include then, so, after, when, as, while, and next.

 

[ozazure]

Just a thought bubble, could the murder have occurred closer to where the body was found. Both phones were pinged not to far from each other however we don't know the time of the pings. Did he follow her when she left the house? Was he angry that she had decided to leave him? Did they pull over and the argument continued and become violent? Did he seek assistance from another party to help dispose of the body and drive the other car back? Why haven't they released the cause of death? Have they established they cause of death?

No doubt someone in that family knows something but hasn't got the guts to stand up and say something. Makes me wonder how that family felt about KR if they are not willing to pull out all stops to find justice for her. Sad, very sad.

I think there's a good chance of this. The phones were turned off and one discarded at some point.

This is my way of thinking. You have killed your wife at home and are going to dispose of the body. During this process you realise you have both phones on and are aware phones can be traced so you turn them off, throw one away. In this scenario you are acutely aware of the error and account for the journey in your lies.

Compare this with a scenario where the phones are on that journey and nothing is amiss. Something erupts. Close to the time of the murder, you throw her phone away and try to obscure your own location, turning yours off. Maybe you obscure the drive from around Toolern Vale to Macedon and home because in your mind, this is the critical time to lie about. You make up a story, not accounting for the phone "innocent" time because you were legitimately driving up the road together. It is a stupid mistake but let's be frank, we've all spun a lie where we suddenly realise there is some other event or person or location that needs to be obscured to make the lie work, and unfortunately for Borce that was phone pings and police had access to that.

They would go up the Calder to her work. We heard he worked in the shop alongside Karen, I want to know if they routinely shared rides there and what time she was expected that day. Did the fight start on the way to work over the shop takings? On the way to AR's because AR was making these allegations and asking for money?

People close to them reading this know. What time was Karen meant to be at work? Does it align with those pings? Did they drive there together often? Would they drop in on AR to confront the issue head on? Would Borce genuinely take Karen's car to fix the gauge when she was so mad she had gone for a walk to cool off, but was due at work that day? Wouldn't that be a recipe for mass drama (it would be in my house!)? How was Karen meant to get to work? Did they routinely swap cars?

 

[ozazure]

Deceptive statements will often have a great deal of extraneous information, ( eg "went upstairs, um, and then came downstairs" , Borce) in them that have nothing to do with the event in question. The deceptive may put in detail after detail, leading up to the occurrence of the event, then suddenly gloss over (and then) the event itself, telling very little about it, if anything at all.

"And then"

This is known as a "Text Bridge", "Temporal lacunae", as skip in time.
We all do it. If we were to document everything that happened on a given day, it would bore the listener/reader, so we skirt or gloss over certain events.

However, given Borce's statement, and the significance and seriousness of what occurred, we would not expect him to jump time, especially since it falls into the extraneous information category. If he considers it important to tell us she went up and "then" came back down, then we should expect the reason for this, he doesn't oblige. It may be something insignificant, but we need to know.

Minute details are paramount in murder cases, it could lead to a conviction of whomever committed an alleged crime.

The most commonly used Text Bridges include then, so, after, when, as, while, and next.

This x100!!! My guess is Karen went upstairs to get that pretty handbag to go to work, and Borce was waiting downstairs to go with her in her car.

 

[CalliopeGG]

This x100!!! My guess is Karen went upstairs to get that pretty handbag to go to work, and Borce was waiting downstairs to go with her in her car.

This would account for the temporal lacunae (new favourite phrase). If he had said she had gone upstairs to get her handbag it wouldn't have fitted in with the rest of his story.

As a woman, I wouldn't be taking my handbag if I was going for a walk to clear my head. Perhaps you might, if you take it everywhere, but it's more likely to be used when preparing to go somewhere in the car. A woman and her handbag can tell us a lot!

 

[SouthAussie]

That's what I think may have happened Armchair. He either incapacitated her at the house and killed her somewhere else, or he took off after her in the car and the murder occurred after that. I believe the body was too decomposed to establish COD. All conjecture on my part.

I don't think Karen left the house on that chilly winter's day with her shoes on.
And I don't think she was laid in that forest with her shoes on either. If she was, Borce would have had the opportunity to see the colour/type (at least) of shoes she was wearing, and include them in the identification articles when Karen was 'missing'. imo

Shoes are an important part of 'missing' descriptions, as they can fall off and get left behind if a violent episode has happened.

 

[CalliopeGG]

I don't think Karen left the house with her shoes on.
And I don't think she was laid in that forest with her shoes on either. If she was, Borce would have had the opportunity to see the colour/type (at least) of shoes she was wearing, and include them in the identification articles when Karen was 'missing'. imo

Good point. If he remembered what her handbag looked like and the brand, surely he would remember her shoes IMO.

 

[purpleandgreen]

Deceptive statements will often have a great deal of extraneous information, ( eg "went upstairs, um, and then came downstairs" , Borce) in them that have nothing to do with the event in question. The deceptive may put in detail after detail, leading up to the occurrence of the event, then suddenly gloss over (and then) the event itself, telling very little about it, if anything at all.

RSBM

Maybe that's the cover up. Maybe she didn't come downstairs, at least on her own 2 feet.

 

[matey]

Deceptive statements will often have a great deal of extraneous information, ( eg "went upstairs, um, and then came downstairs" , Borce) in them that have nothing to do with the event in question. The deceptive may put in detail after detail, leading up to the occurrence of the event, then suddenly gloss over (and then) the event itself, telling very little about it, if anything at all.

RSBM

Maybe that's the cover up. Maybe she didn't come downstairs, at least on her own 2 feet.

Maybe BR smothered her upstairs (no shoes)?
Maybe Karen went upstairs to gather her bag with the $850.00 (the amount he precisely remembers) and she told him she was leaving?
He mentioned the bag with the money but couldn't remember the shoes...

One of the biggest questions for me is "Was Sarah home at the time and/or how much she knows about what really happened to Karen"...

I still feel that the argument was about money and that Vasko and Chris may be involved with the disposal of her body...MOO

 

[emirates1957]

Deceptive statements will often have a great deal of extraneous information, ( eg "went upstairs, um, and then came downstairs" , Borce) in them that have nothing to do with the event in question. The deceptive may put in detail after detail, leading up to the occurrence of the event, then suddenly gloss over (and then) the event itself, telling very little about it, if anything at all.

"And then"

This is known as a "Text Bridge", "Temporal lacunae", as skip in time.
We all do it. If we were to document everything that happened on a given day, it would bore the listener/reader, so we skirt or gloss over certain events.

However, given Borce's statement, and the significance and seriousness of what occurred, we would not expect him to jump time, especially since it falls into the extraneous information category. If he considers it important to tell us she went up and "then" came back down, then we should expect the reason for this, he doesn't oblige. It may be something insignificant, but we need to know.

Minute details are paramount in murder cases, it could lead to a conviction of whomever committed an alleged crime.

The most commonly used Text Bridges include then, so, after, when, as, while, and next.

Your information is fascinating. As an avid reader of crime would you mind referencing some books. Thanks in advance JC40.

 

[JC40]

Your information is fascinating. As an avid reader of crime would you mind referencing some books. Thanks in advance JC40.

Mark McClish: "I Know Your Lying"
Steven Varnel: "Statement Analysis"
John E, Reid: "Essentials of the read techniques
Criminal Interrogations"
Peter Hyatt: Wise as a serpent gentle as a dove: Dealing with Deception.
Don Rabon: "Investigative Discourse Analysis: Statements, Letters, and Transcripts"

A good place to start

Mark McClish's site

http://www.statementanalysis.com/


Amongst many more

 

[JC40]

Mark McClish: "I Know Your Lying"
Steven Varnel: "Statement Analysis"
John E, Reid: "Essentials of the read techniques
Criminal Interrogations"
Peter Hyatt: Wise as a serpent gentle as a dove: Dealing with Deception.
Don Rabon: "Investigative Discourse Analysis: Statements, Letters, and Transcripts"

A good place to start

Mark McClish's site

http://www.statementanalysis.com/

Susan Adams: Statement Analysis

[h=1]Statement Analysis: What Do Suspects’ Words Really Reveal?[/h][FONT=&quot]By Susan H. Adams, M.A.
Special Agent Adams teaches statement analysis as part of interviewing and interrogation courses at the FBI Academy.
1-6
http://crimeandclues.com/2013/03/02/*******************-what-do-suspects-words-really-reveal
Amongst many more

[/FONT]
I hope this helps

 

[emirates1957]

Mark McClish: "I Know Your Lying"
Steven Varnel: "Statement Analysis"
John E, Reid: "Essentials of the read techniques
Criminal Interrogations"
Peter Hyatt: Wise as a serpent gentle as a dove: Dealing with Deception.



Don Rabon: "Investigative Discourse Analysis: Statements, Letters, and Transcripts"

A good place to start

Mark McClish's site

http://www.statementanalysis.com/


Amongst many more

Much appreciated, my KINDLE is going to take a bashing.

 

[KG1]

Devil's Advocate - Did Karen even make it home from the store with the $850 the night before her 'disappearance'? Was she killed enroute to home and left somewhere for later disposal?

 

[ozazure]

Devil's Advocate - Did Karen even make it home from the store with the $850 the night before her 'disappearance'? Was she killed enroute to home and left somewhere for later disposal?

Excellent question!

When was Karen last seen by Sarah?
What time did Karen get home the night before?
When was Karen last seen by someone outside of the family?
When did Karen last use her phone?
Was this phone activity in line with her usual activity?
When was Karen expected at the shop?
Where was Sarah the day Karen went missing?
What was Borce planning on doing the day Karen went missing?
Did Borce and Karen drive together to the shop if they were both going?

And some questions about the future:

Who is going to speak for Karen as the 1st anniversary rapidly approaches?
Is Borce going to call for justice for his wife, call for the killer of his wife, who supposedly kidnapped her from the streets of Avondale Heights, to be brought to justice? Talk about his fears for his daughter with a killer out there?

 

[SouthAussie]

If Borce says anything at all, with the one year anniversary coming up, I expect it will be that his finances are even better than ever!

 

[ozazure]

If Borce says anything at all, with the one year anniversary coming up, I expect it will be that his finances are even better than ever!

Yep and I advise all other wives with an impotent failing entrepreneur for a husband to watch their backs come EOFY!

 

[Oona]

Approaching one year, I cannot fathom how Sarah can still be living in the same house as the "number one suspect" in her mother's murder. How can she mourn the loss of her mother in his presence? Bizarre!

 

[JC40]

When and if he does make a statement. I will be interested in what words and the language he uses.

 

[moreinfo]

Excellent question!

When was Karen last seen by Sarah?
What time did Karen get home the night before?
When was Karen last seen by someone outside of the family?
When did Karen last use her phone?
Was this phone activity in line with her usual activity?
When was Karen expected at the shop?
Where was Sarah the day Karen went missing?
What was Borce planning on doing the day Karen went missing?
Did Borce and Karen drive together to the shop if they were both going?

And some questions about the future:

Who is going to speak for Karen as the 1st anniversary rapidly approaches?
Is Borce going to call for justice for his wife, call for the killer of his wife, who supposedly kidnapped her from the streets of Avondale Heights, to be brought to justice? Talk about his fears for his daughter with a killer out there?

Hope daddy is protecting his daughter from the evil killers on the loose and has reconnected the cctv at their home. Has he even changed the locks on the doors, Karens killer has her bag right!